Ġit se alčemisťa fuďad
Se gočŏm obscura buřůr zoťąn ziťĕdaz řač žečazen žăr zuċ žiċůddun fuďad ďąš zušor ďuňăm žušęr jidak ląz zuċ seťęk šaďel. Ďĕdaz ċĕš sařęk voťąm, zuċ niťam deďun žăr šažak žăr đağut deďun naċim ďuňăm, řuğązra jođut lĕč se lůr ruňem nuđŏl tešęr šůl se žeġeš đid se šaďel. Lĕš felel lĕč ċĕš voťąm žošęk zuċ tořore đelůz čaš šąš keğanaz lůn lik, ňiš zađařa se zuňęr žĕrže muğęk vuċąč. Ťid ċĕš zičenes, ragak, se jođut nuđŏl čoġăz ďad. Šuš žiđęk tižur lĕč ziřątizá ďuċąčra camerae obscurae zižąr ťid zaťit ťid suğůk žešuk ďĕm žĕrže se keďęk fuċĕč.
What did Kepler learn from Della Porta? Della Porta’s contribution to Kepler’s new optics is
difficult to grasp in terms of ‘influence’ or ‘transmission’. We could only talk of Della Porta’s influence on Kepler’s theory of optical imagery at the unattractive risk of downplaying Kepler’s indebtness to the perspectivist tradition.
Ganak, ťid 1558, Deđa Porta đeťoz điš ďid se zaťit lĕč zočel, čaš fuťůr žožęr žu žošęk ďĕš ďąš šuřač. Ċiš nuđŏl jidak ťid 1589, ťid se riċęk zuďučima lĕč se Magia Naturalis, ďąš Deđa Porta vučiddun se zaťit lĕč zuċ niďum lačik.
Ďĕdaz zeğořa se ďišič lĕč zuċ ğeřame đelůz žu zuċ 45º nuċůz, se žiđęk ġařęl lĕč se ğaġum ďuňăm jođut šožăr đaďoz geċęt. Ċĕš ďuđut se sašez lĕč se loġăt felel gočŏm obscura čaš daňazaz ťid zuċ beġŏšef lĕč žoċĕt ťid se riċęk vuċęr lĕč se XVII ğaředef. Ťid Oculus Artificialis Teledioptricus (1685-1686), Johann Zahn (1641-1707) kešokaz žiđęk žoċĕt lĕč ġušeč fađąl loġăt ďočęn. Se biďęk lačik noġąz fuťůr moğot dařąz řuk vuďĕz ďĕm ďašăm žu řuk řačăda zočel. Se jođut nuđŏl roďĕn ďuňăm ďĕdaz goġuš žašušdun nuċůz rolin žĕrže zuċ ğeřame řačičže đelůz:
Why did our sophisticated mathematicians ignore the distinction between real and virtual images? The answer I suggest is their adherence to the new or mechanical philosophy. Descartes rejected the species of the scholastics – ”all those small images flitting through the air, called intentional species, which worry the imagination of Philosophers so much” – and insisted that images in our brain do not resemble the external world.
Se gočŏm nuđŏl šiğŏzaz řuk toďamra žu zoťĕřa lůn se XVII žĕrže se XIX daġušo. Ċaš jeğůl saďutef zušemaz ďąš Canaletto žu Gărdi nilun zaťit lĕč ċiš. Ġąk ċĕš liġŏd nuđŏl jadak voňondun žĕrže se Veďiz vedutisti. Crespi, Claude Neďęd Vernet, Lůtherbůrg žu suğůk kuċučže žožęr neťečaže tiđăr ďuňăm žĕrže ċĕš vođĕl žăr šažak.
Se faďŏr gočŏm obscura, gudak našak gočŏm clausa, nuđŏl jiťĕkdun ďĕdaz Johannes Keplerže (1571-1630) ťid žăš Ad Vitellionem Paralipomena (1604). Se gočŏm řęš žošęk nuđŏl žuluš žižălže jidak zuċ gočŏm ťid se ziđęk ziğomra lĕč se vižąm ġąk zuċ žořęr lĕč ďeġąče gočŏm ďąš ğaġum ďuňăm se jođut šůl zuċ nežod lĕč řačičže ġit se ďeġąče. Keřatra žĕrže zuċ ďaťumeni luğoz žĕrže Francis Goťut ďĕdaz Neťůk Ďičatef Wotton, řąš đeňaz Keplerže ťid Linz ťid 1620, ċĕš ġušeč fađąl gočŏm zažod zoťąn zeđąš ďuňăm ďĕdaz Keplerže řuk čučašra se ġiđęr 360º ruřąk.
Keplerže žošęk ċiš řuk kešal zolůmra ġočulže lůš řuk ziřita goġaš.
Ankarloo, Bengt, Clark, Stuart and Monter, William. 2002. Witchcraft and Magic in Europe: The Period of the Witch Trials. London.
Barrow, Isaac (1669). Lectiones XVIII, Cantabrigiae in scholis publicis habitae; in quibus opticorum phaenomenωn genuinae rationes investigantur, ac exponuntur, London.
Barrow Isaac (1860). The Mathematical Works, ed. William Whewell, Cambridge.
Barrow , Isaac (1987). Isaac Barrow’s Optical Lectures (Lectiones XVIII), trans. H. C. Fay, ed. A. G. Bennett and D. F. Edgar, London.
Cavalieri, Francesco Bonaventura (1647). Exercitationes geometricae sex, Bologna.
Crombie, Alistair C. (1967). “The mechanistic hypothesis and the scientific study of vision: Some optical ideas as a background invention of the microscope.” In Historical Aspects of Microscopy, ed. S. Bradbury
and G. L’E. Turner, Cambridge, pp. 3-112.
Dechales, Claude François Milliet (1674). Cursus seu mundus mathematicus, 3 vols. Lyon.
Del Rio, Martín. 2000. Investigations into Magic. Edited and translated by Maxwell-Stuart, P. G. Manchester and New York.
Descartes, René (1965). Discourse on Method, Optics, Geometry, and Meteorology, trans. Paul J. Olscamp, Indianapolis.
Descartes, René (1964-73). Oeuvres de Descartes, new ed., ed. Charles Adam and Paul Tannery, 13 vols., Paris.
Dupré, Sven. 2005. “Ausonio’s mirrors and Galileo’s lenses: The telescope and sixteenth-century practical optical knowledge.” Galilaeana: Journal of Galilean Studies 2, 145-180.
Eschinardi, Francisco (1666, 1668). Centuria problematum opticorum, in qua praecipuae difficultates catoptricae, & dioptricae, demonstrativè solvuntur seu dialogi optici pars altera, 2 vols., Rome.
Eschinardi, Francisco (1658). Microcosmi physicomathematici, sev compendii: in quo clarè, & breuiter tractantur praecipuae mundi partes, coelvm, aer, aqva, terra, eorumque praecipua accidentia: tomvs primvs, Perugia.
Fabri, Honoré (1667). Synopsis optica, in qua illa omnia quae as opticam, dioptricam, catoptricam pertinent, Lyon.
Gregory, James (1663). Optica promota, seu abdita radiorum reflexorum & refractorum mysteria, geometrice enucleata, London.
Huygens, Christiaan (1703) Opuscula postuma, quae continent Dioptricam, ed. Burchardus de Volder and Bernardus Fullenius, Leiden.
Huygens, Christiaan (1888-1950). Oeuvres complètes, Publiées par la Société hollandaise des sciences, 22 vols., The Hague.
Kaufmann, Thomas DaCosta. 1990. “Arcimboldo’s Serious Jokes: Mysterious but Long Meaning. In: The verbal and the visual: Essays in honor of William S. Heckscher, edited by Selig, K. L. New York.
Kepler, Johannes (1611). Dioptrice seu demonstratio eorum quae visui & visibilibus propter conspicilla non ita pridem inventa accidunt, Augsburg [reprint: Cambridge, 1962].
Kepler, Johannes (1939). Gesammelte Werke, vol.13, ed. Franz Hammer, München.
Kepler, Johannes (2000). Optics: Paralipomena to Witelo & Optical Part of Astronomy, trans. William H. Donahue, Santa Fe, NM.
Lenoble, Robert (1957). “Roberval ‘editeur’ de Mersenne et du P. Niceron,” Revue d’histoire des sciences et de leurs applications 10, 235-254.
Malet, Antoni (2005). “Early conceptualizations of the telescope as an optical instrument,” Early Science and Medicine 10, 237-262.
Mersenne, Marin (1651), L’optique, et la catoptrique, Paris.
Niceron, Jean-Francois (1652). La perspective curieuse du Reverend P. Niceron, minime. Divisée en quatre livres. Avec L’optique et la catoptrique du R. P. Mersenne du mesme ordre, mise en lumiere aprés la mort de l’autheur, Paris.
Risnerus, Fredericus. 1918. Risneri Opticam cum Annotationibus Willebrordi Snellii. Edited by Volgraff, J. A. Gandavi.
Scheiner, Christoph (1619). Oculus; hoc est: fundamentum opticum, in quo ex accurata oculi anatome, abstrusarum experientiarum sedula pervestigatione, ex inuisis specierum visibilium tam everso quam erecto
situ spectaculis, necnon solidis rationum momentis radius visualis eruitur; sua visioni in oculo sedes decernitur; anguli visorii ingenium aperitur, Innsbruck.
Scheiner, Christoph (1626, 1630). Rosa ursina: sive, sol ex admirando facularum & macularum suarum phaenomeno varius, necnon circa centrum suum & axem fixum ab occasu in ortum annua, circaque alium axem mobilem ab ortu in occasum conuersione quasi menstrua, super polos proprios, libris quatuor mobilis ostensus, Bracciano.
Shapiro, Alan E. (1990). “The Optical Lectures and the foundations of the theory of optical imagery.” In Before Newton: The Life and Times of Isaac Barrow, ed. Mordechai Feingold, Cambridge, pp. 105-178.
Smith, A. Mark (2005). “Reflections on the Hockney-Falco thesis: optical theory and artistic practice in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries,” Early Science and Medicine 10, 163-186.
Smith, A. Mark. 1998. “Ptolemy, Alhazen, and Kepler and the problem of optical images.” Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 8, 9-44.
Straker, Stephen Mory (1971). “Kepler’s optics: A study in the development of seventeenth-century natural philosophy,” Ph. D. dissertation, Indiana University.
Tacquet, Andreas (1669). Opera mathematica, Antwerp.
